Is the news story about Rachel Canning, the Morristown, N.J.’s 18 year old high school student, suing her parents for living and tuition expenses WITH THE MONEY FROM A FRIEND’S PARENTS a Willie Wonka’s Chocolate Factory & a Coraline Plot all in one?
Readers of this story are comparing Rachel to the spoiled brat in Willie Wonka’s Chocolate Factory.
In the movie Coraline, the “other mother” and the “other father” turn the preteen Coraline against her parents by pointing out her parents’ shortcoming and providing a more enticing place to stay:
Nothing’s changed. You’ll go home. You’ll be bored. You’ll be ignored. No one will listen to you, really listen to you. You’re too clever and too quiet for them to understand. They don’t even get your name right.”
In real life, the New Jersey high school girl chose to leave her home when her parents tried to enforce their home rules, according to news reports. She moved in with friends’ parents, then sued her own parents. Her friend’s parents are paying for the girl’s legal fees.
An NBC article on their Today Show website reads, (in part):
“On Tuesday, a New Jersey judge denied the teen’s request for emergency financial assistance during a court proceeding that brought her together with her parents for the first time since October. The two sides did not exchange any words, although at times Rachel’s parents wept.Elizabeth and Sean Canning have denied all claims of abuse. Instead, they say their daughter got upset after they laid down the law following a suspension from school, incidents of drinking and after dating someone they didn’t like.
On Tuesday, a New Jersey judge appeared to side with the parents, when he denied Rachel’s request for emergency child support.
‘Do we want to establish a precedent where parents live in constant fear of establishing basic rules of the house?’ said Morristown Superior Court Judge Peter Bogaard. ‘Since if they institute a rule that Junior doesn’t like, Junior can move out. He can move in with another family, he could sue for child support, attorney’s fees, car, cell phone, and a few hundred grand in college.’”
When other parents don’t support parents, are they participating in causing further harm to a parent/child relationship?
How would you feel if your child did this because you wanted to create a healthy life for him or her?
Do you think this couple paying for this teenager’s legal fees took the time to question and listen to Rachel’s parents?
Do you think Rachel’s friend’s parents had a right to be a part of dragging the Cannings to court over a request for money?
What happens when a society undermines the influence and values and safety a parent expects to maintain within their own home?
What happens when a society undermines a single parent trying to protect her child from an abusive/alienating ex-spouse?
It’s not good for this high school girl to be in legal conflict with her parents over money and privileges. This lawsuit must have caused great pain and distress and humiliation for her parents who have a right to run their home in a safe and respectful manner without worrying about an expensive lawsuit.
What happens to parents who don’t have that kind of money for legal fees?
What kind of message was the parents of Rachel’s friend sending Rachel by providing legal fees against her parents?
What happens to single parents who don’t have the support of a spouse, but instead have an ex who wants to exploit the court system?
Should both single and married parents sue for alienation of affection and attempt to corrupt a child?
Did having this family on the stand cause greater damage to them as a family? If yes, then do these N.J. parents of Rachel have a right sue the adults who supported Rachel’s lawsuit against them?